Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-14 Thread Moni Shoua
Roland Dreier wrote: > > It happens only when ib interfaces are slaves of a bonding device. > > I thought before that the stuck is in napi_disable() but it's almost right. > > I put prints before and after call to napi_disable and see that it is > called twice. > > I'll try to investigate in t

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-13 Thread Moni Shoua
I will be near my lab only tomorrow... I will check this and let you know. On 10/11/07, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It happens only when ib interfaces are slaves of a bonding device. > > I thought before that the stuck is in napi_disable() but it's almost right. > > I put print

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-11 Thread Jay Vosburgh
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >Yes, two napi_disable()s in a row without a matching napi_enable() >will deadlock. I guess the question is why the ipoib interface is >being stopped twice. > >If you just take the net-2.6.24 tree (without bonding patches), does >bonding for ethernet

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-11 Thread Roland Dreier
> It happens only when ib interfaces are slaves of a bonding device. > I thought before that the stuck is in napi_disable() but it's almost right. > I put prints before and after call to napi_disable and see that it is called > twice. > I'll try to investigate in this direction. > > ib0: s

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-11 Thread Moni Shoua
Roland Dreier wrote: > > I also ran a test for the code in the branch of 2.6.24 and found a problem. > > I see that ifconfig down doesn't return (for IPoIB interfaces) and it's > stuck in napi_disable() in the kernel (any idea why?) > > For what it's worth, I took the upstream 2.6.23 git tree a

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-10 Thread Roland Dreier
> I also ran a test for the code in the branch of 2.6.24 and found a problem. > I see that ifconfig down doesn't return (for IPoIB interfaces) and it's > stuck in napi_disable() in the kernel (any idea why?) For what it's worth, I took the upstream 2.6.23 git tree and merged in Dave's latest n

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-10 Thread Moni Shoua
Jay Vosburgh wrote: > David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:56:35 -0400 >> >>> Jeff Garzik wrote: applied patches 1-9 the only thing that was a hiccup during submission is that your email subject lines d

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-09 Thread Jay Vosburgh
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:56:35 -0400 > >> Jeff Garzik wrote: >> > applied patches 1-9 >> > >> > the only thing that was a hiccup during submission is that your email >> > subject lines did not contain a notion of or

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-09 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:56:35 -0400 > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > applied patches 1-9 > > > > the only thing that was a hiccup during submission is that your email > > subject lines did not contain a notion of ordering "[PATCH 1/9] ...". > > But other than tha

Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: Bound the net device to the ipoib_neigh structue

2007-10-09 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jeff Garzik wrote: applied patches 1-9 the only thing that was a hiccup during submission is that your email subject lines did not contain a notion of ordering "[PATCH 1/9] ...". But other than that, the git-send-email went flawlessly. unfortunately it does not seem to build flawlessly: dr